Google shill. They just can't accept the fact that Google is a hypocrite company we all know it is, can they?

1) He's not a Google schill.

2) Are Schiller fans called schillers? That's confusing. Although I do like Schmidt fans being called schmidtheads.

3) I've yet to see a company that isn't hypocritical or dubious in some way. I think Apple is more honest than Google as they tend to be very clear about what they will discuss and leave very little to question, whereas Google is more likely to use terminology and make statements that arr more "open" to interpretation. In that case Google really is more "open".

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I didn't read that much into it. I was making a guess. I wasn't defending them, nor justifying it, big difference.

OK then. I misunderstood. The fact that Google wasn't happy with Alibaba is because it's Android fork that didn't use Google services. From Andy Rubin's:

"So there's really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that's gone into that platform by the OHA.

So if you want to benefit from the Android ecosystem, then make the choice to be compatible. [It's] easy, free, and we'll even help you out. But if you don't want to be compatible, then don't expect help from OHA members that are all working to support and build a unified Android ecosystem."

Those visual representations of their Android version names are just hideous. I imagine that Jobs would say that Google has no taste to think these were a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by studentx

"In recent months, Google has changed the way it calculates the distribution of Android versions. While the company acknowledges that many devices are still on Gingerbread, first released in 2010, it now publicizes proportions only related to the users that access its Google Play Store, meaning that many Android device users essentially go uncounted with regard to developers.

Classic. They didn't like the numbers so they only counted what they want to see. This discounts all of the Android phones only being used as feature/dumb phones.

If so they should only count activations that "access its Google Play Store". You know, phones activated and being used as smartphones.

That sounds like those numbers using 4.x are therefore much lower than the number of activations suggest.

Chocolate Froyo? 💩

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

"Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something."

Google commanded, Acer listened.

Well, perhaps there might be other readers who would like to be educated rather than choose to remain ignorant of the issues. My mistake was assuming you had any interest in knowing the difference. Had you bothered to read the articles I linked you might have found areas where we actually agree. You just have no idea why.

Like half-assed iPhone 1: a smart phone that was not smart enough to copy/paste.

Or like half-assed Apple Maps.

And yet Android still hasn't implemented cut/copy/paste as well or as completely as Apple did back in 2009 on their first attempt.

Your argument is like saying Dropbox sucks because Apple had iDisk years prior and yet you'd be a fool to say that iDisk was as good or secure as Dropbox. Of course YOU would never say that because YOU hate Apple but that just shows your inability to be fair or reasonable.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

And yet Android still hasn't implemented cut/copy/paste as well or as completely as Apple did back in 2009 on their first attempt.

Your argument is like saying Dropbox sucks because Apple had iDisk years prior and yet you'd be a fool to say that iDisk was as good or secure as Dropbox. Of course YOU would never say that because YOU hate Apple but that just shows your inability to be fair or reasonable.

I don't hate Apple. I've been using Apple products for 20 years and I have owned two dozen pieces of Apple hardware. I love Apple, but not religiously, like some do. I am objective enough to say, that a smartphone with no copy/paste is "half-assed" (your terminology).

And yet Android still hasn't implemented cut/copy/paste as well or as completely as Apple did back in 2009 on their first attempt.

Your argument is like saying Dropbox sucks because Apple had iDisk years prior and yet you'd be a fool to say that iDisk was as good or secure as Dropbox. Of course YOU would never say that because YOU hate Apple but that just shows your inability to be fair or reasonable.

The cut/copy/paste befuddles me. Sometimes it works splendidly and other times it makes me wanna throw my phone against a wall.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

Google was widely expected to release a new version of its operating system at this week's Google I/O, but the Android team's comments seem to indicate that the search giant has taken a different track this year, focusing more on honing what already exists on the platform rather than leaping ahead to new versions with new features and new architectures.

Let's take a look at how drastic the fragmentation really is. Here are the usage share numbers for

Android 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 as of May 1, 2013, according to Wikipedia:

Android 4.0.x "Ice Cream Sandwich"

- released October 2011

- 27.5% usage share

Android 4.1.x "Jelly Bean"

- released July 2012

- 26.1% usage share

Android 4.2.x "Jelly Bean"

- released November 2012

- 2.3% usage share

The usage share of 4.2, after nearly six months, is just 2.3%.

Meanwhile, 2.3.x "Gingerbread," from way back in December 2010, dominates Android usage with 38.5% usage share.

The obvious result being, of course, that few if any developers will target any of the "advanced" features of 4.2.

They'll be forced to stick with lowest-common-denominator features that work on 2.3.x - 4.1.x.

Second, according to Wikipedia, iOS got multitasking in version 4.0, but not in version 1.0:

I believe his reference was to the fact that on iPhone OS 1 one could talk and surf, talk and use other apps, use other app while listening to music and so forth. When third party apps were first allowed, they were not allowed to run in the background but Apple's own apps always did.

For the current state of Apple technology - to be precise. Apple mobile devices don't have enough RAM to support real multitasking.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

iOS has always been a fully pre-emptive, multitasking, multi-threaded OS. Apple made a "choice" to not allow third party Apps to run in the background. They then did a very smart thing in 4.0 and added "services" where you could have a portion of your App run in the background for tasks that actually NEED multitasking (phone calls, e-mail, notifications, location, audio and so on).

Apple could allow third party Apps to multitask tomorrow by "flipping a switch" in their OS. There's nothing missing or faulty with the core architecture of iOS that prevents multitasking, as many Android fanboys constantly try to insinuate.

In fact, Android doesn't do "true multitasking" (a term they coined since I never heard of "true multitasking" until a fanboy mentioned it). Android, like iOS, does not have virtual memory or a swap file and will force close Apps when resources run low. No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". Apps can be suspended or swapped out to virtual memory, but they shouldn't be closed outright. Android does this. So does iOS. They both remember the "state" the App was in so it can be "restarted" in such a way to make the user think the App was always running when in fact it wasn't.

Spare me! Google changes their OS Android for the sole purpose of helping the cell phone maker sell new crap. It works simply like this.
Google keeps making a build of Android more complex than the last so it sucks a** on previous cell phone maker's hardware. It's a calculated effort between Google and the hardware guys.

In fact, Android doesn't do "true multitasking" (a term they coined since I never heard of "true multitasking" until a fanboy mentioned it). No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking".

Never heard that one before. Where did you find that? If there's some at least semi-official definition somewhere it would put to rest all the silly arguments about whose mobile OS really multitasks.

FWIW I don't see why it's important to know anyway, nor what's lost or gained by the different uses, but for you and a couple of others it seems to be an important distinction.

Never heard that one before. Where did you find that? If there's some at least semi-official definition somewhere it would put to rest all the silly arguments about whose mobile OS really multitasks.

FWIW I don't see why it's important to know anyway, nor what's lost or gained by the different uses, but for you and a couple of others it seems to be an important distinction.

1) He didn't bring it up.

2) The distinction is quite simple. It's about the ability of the OS which means that iOS has been doing "true" multitasking since its inception.

3) Let's remember that it's multitasking not multi-apping, but even if we want to use that term (which I may have just invented) iOS was doing it from the start if we consider the tasks that apps use, but what it didn't do until iOS 4.0 is allow 3rd-party apps to run in the background. That means that 2 3rd-party apps were not allowed to hold resources in memory at the same time, but a 3rd-party app on-screen would still work with as many built-in apps as the OS saw fit to run. So what we're really talking about isn't multitasking or even multi-apping, but multi-third-party-apping… which sounds pretty damn ridiculous to me.Edited by SolipsismX - 5/19/13 at 11:43am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I have an iPhone 3GS, an iPad 2 and a Samsung Galaxy tab 2 7" running jelly bean. I can honestly say that the android tablet is the worst of the three. Even the 3GS runs apps such as BBC iplayer and other on demand tv services much better than the Tab 2. As for office apps, nothing on the android tablet comes even close to iWork on iOS.

Spare me! Google changes their OS Android for the sole purpose of helping the cell phone maker sell new crap. It works simply like this.
Google keeps making a build of Android more complex than the last so it sucks a** on previous cell phone maker's hardware. It's a calculated effort between Google and the hardware guys.

I don't think it's done to screw the older phones. The OS has matured since Gingerbread, it's less toyish and more refined now. I admire how Apple can keep older phones up to date but that's something Android will have a difficult time with as long as there are manufacturers making low end phones and using a older version of Android.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

2) The distinction is quite simple. It's about the ability of the OS which means that iOS has been doing "true" multitasking since its inception.

3) Let's remember that it's multitasking not multi-apping, but even if we want to use that term (which I may have just invented) iOS was doing it from the start if we consider the tasks that apps use, but what it didn't do until iOS 4.0 is allow 3rd-party apps to run in the background. That means that 2 3rd-party apps were not allowed to hold resources in memory at the same time, but a 3rd-party app on-screen would still work with as many built-in apps as the OS saw fit to run. So what we're really talking about isn't multitasking or even multi-apping, but multi-third-party-apping… which sounds pretty damn ridiculous to me.

1. Sure he did. If it wasn't just his own personal definition I'd like to see where it came from. It could help end some silly claims from all sides.

2. It could be. Good luck with wide agreement outside of Apple-friendly blogs and forums.

3. Pretty much agree. I don't know why the distinction is important either.

I'm pretty darn sure that Eric said Android won't multi-task according to the definition he offered. Read it again.

No, he said that Android will kill apps if needs RAM which would call into question whether it's real multitasking which is really in the same ball park as what Apple does by only allowing certain APIs for 3rd-party apps to run in the background and killing the apps if it needs the RAM. This is how a mobile OS should operate. Again, he was responding to mercury99's foolish comment that there is no real multitasking.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.